Obama: It’s time to allow tax cuts for the wealthy, folks like myself, to expire

posted at 1:21 pm on July 9, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

So it looks like we’re back to tax cuts, a.k.a. class-warmongering distraction number one, as one of the campaign-related talking points du jour (because we don’t want anybody lingering over ObamaCareTax now, do we?). President Obama gave yet another much-recycled speech on Monday afternoon, in which he announced his latest drive to extend the Bush-era tax cuts — but only for Americans making less than $250,000 a year

Here’s the speech in full, if you care to try and stomach the ol’ ‘we’ve tried ‘top-down’ economics and it didn’t work,’ ‘these darn tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are what’s driving our deficit,’ ‘these Republicans are obstructing just for the sake of obstructing’ blather.

But if you’d rather not sit through the entire thing (a sentiment with which I can entirely sympathize), here’s the real ‘really, I promise, this isn’t about class warfare’-money moment.

Yet again, President Obama is trying to redefine “top-down” economics to mean the whims of the wealthy and Wall Street, rather than the many artifices of big government, and trying to make it sound as if the entire financial crisis is their fault — as if the tax cuts didn’t help anyone or anything, except allow the rich to become richer. How are tax hikes in any shape, manner, or form supposed to helpful during a recession? Because the federal government is soooo much better at spending our money than we are?

President Obama exhorted Congress to pass a bill extending the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 right now, a move that ‘we can all agree on,’ and said that we can continue to debate about whether to extend the tax cuts for those making more than that later on — a push that will put him at somewhat at odds with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who’s said she’d like to extend the tax cuts for those making up to one million dollars a year. Hmm, wonder how she’s going to handle that one?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Is there a base level of the American economy failure that you won’t cheer comrade? Everything you advocvate for here harms your President’s folkzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

And frankly we are sick of your command control taxed into poverty nonsense. It doesn’t work, it will never work. And you are too smart by 1/8 to make it work.

Not to mention that no rich person or corporation EVER pays taxes. EVER. They reduce salaries and hiring and raise prices if they can. A rich person with household help will let some go. A teacher and firefighter in New York making $270,000 will have to stop putting as much in savings or move into a smaller housing arrangement.

They are rich and they are successful corporations because they know how to make, and KEEP, their money, as evidenced by how Buffet has structured his “income” in the form of the least taxed payouts. That’s why we will both never see that 82.9 Billion number hit and what portion we do collect will ACTUALLY be paid by the employees and customers of the people you raise the taxes on. Nixon and commies have tried to fix it with price controls. The producers stopped producing.

Clinton tried taxes on luxury items, and the yacht, luxury car, etc businesses all suffered so severely that they took the taxes back off.

I actually want the President to keep reminding the country that the Bush tax cuts were for EVERYBODY. Before he took office they were only called the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” and the fact that every taxpayer got a break was carefully ignored. Now he’s forced to point out over and over again that the tax cuts were for all tax rates.

Great companies are started by great entrepreneurs, not Paris Hilton. To suggest that higher tax rates would discourage Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison from starting another great company is pointless, given the general support for higher taxes among high growth entrepreneurs. It’a also absurd to suggest that Clinton level tax rates will exhaust anyone’s wealth. Do yourrealize that even Bush’s own Treasury and Alan Greenspan described Bush’s tax cuts as irresponsible?

Yawn. Same old, same old. . .. This guy is a broken record. Go ahead. Confiscate 100% of everything the “wealthy” make. You won’t fund the government behemoth for a month or so. Certainly, you won’t make a year. What do you do then?

It’s all a preliminary move toward confiscation of accumulated wealth. Let’s face it, that’s what the left really wants. What type of government system is that called again? ;)

I don’t care if they were in place 100 years. They did not work with the exception of bankrupt our country in the first place.

The right loves to say they are a “tax increase” well, they law was not permanent in the first place, so it is only going back to what it was before it was temporarily passed.

The country is in debt, and these tax breaks caused a good amount of that debt.

I remember a time when there was a surplus. Where did that go?

It is NOT a tax raise, it is the temporary tax breaks expiring.

damian1967 on July 9, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Absolute hogwash. The tax breaks did not cause the debt, excessive amounts of spending did! Why can’t you idiots get that through your thick skulls? Oh, that’s right, because you love the idea of ever increasing federal government, and the erosion of liberty.

Great companies are started by great entrepreneurs, not Paris Hilton. To suggest that higher tax rates would discourage Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison from starting another great company is pointless, given the general support for higher taxes among high growth entrepreneurs. It’a also absurd to suggest that Clinton level tax rates will exhaust anyone’s wealth. Do yourrealize that even Bush’s own Treasury and Alan Greenspan described Bush’s tax cuts as irresponsible?

bayam on July 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You really are obsessed with these big companies aren’t you. Job growth and economic activity doesn’t live and die with Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, it does so with small business owners.

I love how enraged many of you guys get at Obama over taxes…when he is presiding over historic lows.

verbaluce on July 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM

We have historic lows on tax revenue because we have an historic low in workforce participation rate. The taxpayers aren’t working because the bloated, out of control, over regulating, wealth demonizing liberals are in control, want more, and can ONLY talk about taking more while the world burns around them from doing exactly what liberals want to do here.

Obama promised to reform entitlements and here we are 3 months from the election and we have ZERO proposals from him or his party to do so. All liberals have done is demonizing and demagoging of the people that are proposing changes.

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, yet every one of his 100% rejected budgets had even bigger deficits than we’ve had under the continuing resolution.

Obama promised transparency, so his admin meets lobbyists outside the White House so they don’t have to register.

He promised to take it to the banks, but allows Bernanke to funnel millions in “transaction fees” to Goldmann Sachs, Ben’s former employer and frequent WH guest, unnecessarily during the QE’s.

Also, 75% of those over $250,000 are small businesses that file on individual returns. How much margin do you think they have? And small businesses need to hire to provide the employed people to create the demand for larger businesses to grow!

Go ahead and tear down those links, point by point. I don’t want to get in your way.

bayam on July 9, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Do you really want me to? Do you want me to first give you a chance to point out the flaws of their arguments, or are you comfortable tying your credibility to the arguments being made in those articles?

Looking at the picture of the woman standing behind Barry, one can understand why Julia looks to the government as her more dependable mate.
Does the instability of relationship and marriage explain the women’s vote for Democrats, the give-me party?

To believe that a few regulatory changes will restore consumer demand- in the wake of a historic balance sheet recession and deep wealth loss- is also absurd.

bayam on July 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM

It’s not absurd.

The historic “balance sheet recession” that you keep referring to would come to an end with improved consumer confidence. The consumer is currently quite pessimistic about the regulatory environment so even a few changes in the right direction – instead of the wrong direction – could improve consumer confidence materially.

Who would you go to for investment money? Does your middle class neighbor down the street create middle class jobs? How many has he hired? How’s that corporation he started doing?

Great companies are started by great entrepreneurs, not Paris Hilton. To suggest that higher tax rates would discourage Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison from starting another great company is pointless, given the general support for higher taxes among high growth entrepreneurs.

bayam on July 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Are you drunk already? How on earth could Paris Hilton be considered a middle-class entrepreneur, and what the heck does Gates/Bezos/Ellison have to do with middle-class entrepreneurs?

So the President’s new message (old), say’s it’s time for the rich folk to get in line and pay their fair share, because the poor folk need more things (free money). Yep, we need to just jump right in. Rip Van Winkle, really did have it made. Come on November.

Great companies are started by great entrepreneurs, not Paris Hilton. To suggest that higher tax rates would discourage Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison from starting another great company is pointless, given the general support for higher taxes among high growth entrepreneurs.

bayam on July 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

It might not discourage them from trying, but it would certianly make it much harder. Which is why those individuals want the higher taxes on those trying to get rich – to keep the competition down.

Again, when those individuals actually voluntarily pay more in taxes for a few years, maybe I’ll start to care when they claim they want higher taxes imposed upon themselves. Probably not though, as rich people can be entirely wrong about tax policy or many other things.

I know you on the left love to “cite to authority” in thinking it makes your case for you, but this is, for the 10,000th time, an epic fail.

Let’s go back, for instance, to Buffet and his desire to keep the death tax. He made his millions buying companies from families that could not afford the tax and had to sell the company cheap because of it. Thus, the guy made tons of money off the death tax. Of course he wants to keep it.

It’s typical of all of these peoples’ attitudes – they want to use the power of gov’t to help themselves and keep competition down. If they were truly feeling patriotic, they would donate a bunch of their own money to the Gov’t rather than calling on the gov’t imposing taxes on everyone else. They never do this. Therefore, their actions prove the lie in their words.

It’a also absurd to suggest that Clinton level tax rates will exhaust anyone’s wealth. Do yourrealize that even Bush’s own Treasury and Alan Greenspan described Bush’s tax cuts as irresponsible?

I don’t think anyone is claiming that Clinton era tax rates will “exhaust” wealth. But it will hurt the economy. As far as “irresponsible” – as irresponsible as all the spending over the years? As the entitlement programs we have built up over the years? It’s only irresponsible to the extent you don’t cut spending. they did not cut spending. That part was irresponsible. Why don’t we act responsibly and cut spending and reform entitlements – then after we see the left is serious about doing that, we’ll agree to reform the tax code and increase some taxes on truly wealthy people?

Regardless, you don’t get the philosophical difference. You start from the viewpoint that all earnings are the govt’s except what the gov’t allows you to keep, and that the gov’t should spend as much as it can and tax as much as it can get away with. That is your starting assumption – whether conscious or not.

We believe gov’t should tax as little as possible and spend as little as possible and do as little as possible, and that all money a person earns is his money until confiscated by the gov’t.

You think you can come up with some magical tax/spend formula that will create wealth and make everyone happy. We think that the gov’t only gets in the way of creating wealth and people creating their own happiness.

To suggest that higher tax rates would discourage Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison from starting another great company is pointless, given the general support for higher taxes among high growth entrepreneurs.

bayam on July 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Plus, this is circular reasoning. B/c they want high taxes now that they have been successful, that means those starting out also want high taxes.

It’s easy to pretend to be for socialist type policies when you are rich and know such policies will not really every effect you. No matter what these people say today, I doubt very much they would have supported higher taxes, or would have been against tax cuts, back when they were just starting out.

find me 1,000 start up companies where people are struggling to make it and tell me how many of them want their taxes raised.

Great companies are started by great entrepreneurs, not Paris Hilton. To suggest that higher tax rates would discourage Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison from starting another great company is pointless, given the general support for higher taxes among high growth entrepreneurs. It’a also absurd to suggest that Clinton level tax rates will exhaust anyone’s wealth. Do you realize that even Bush’s own Treasury and Alan Greenspan described Bush’s tax cuts as irresponsible?

Except the taxes hit Paris Hilton, entrepreneurs and small businesses with under 100 stockholders (ie the vast majority) at a time we aren’t creating enough jobs. Bayam cannot explain why this is a good idea.

Nor has he explained that if the problem is weak demand, why do we want to decrease demand with tax hikes?

The tax hikes Obama wants are worth $80 billion assuming no significant change in behavior on behalf of those taxed. (in other words, fantasyland)

Great companies are started by great entrepreneurs, not Paris Hilton. To suggest that higher tax rates would discourage Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison from starting another great company is pointless, given the general support for higher taxes among high growth entrepreneurs. It’a also absurd to suggest that Clinton level tax rates will exhaust anyone’s wealth. Do you realize that even Bush’s own Treasury and Alan Greenspan described Bush’s tax cuts as irresponsible?

“folks like myself”, that’s the problem! he got rich off of writing books. he can make more money by writing another book.

he doesn’t make money by investing into his own company that employs people, and he doesn’t invest his own money into startups. he took no risks to get rich. so the folks that will be affected by these higher taxes are not like him!

he’s a special kind of rich that is rare, like a movie star or musician. it’s all based on celebrity, and has nothing to do with budgeting, planning, business strategies, hiring, firing or risk!

romney ought to point out that he took risks with his money, one could even say he “bet on america”, unlike obama who took no risk to become rich and was basically given money!

“Obama: It’s time to allow tax cuts for the wealthy, folks like myself, to expire”

I agree with Obama for the first time. Let’s rescind the tax cuts for politicians and other federal employees – people like him.

Kevin M on July 9, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Not a bad idea. We know we have a problem with excessive federal salaries, bonuses and lavish pension benefits. Going through them all would be painstakingly tedious. We can take care of some of the problem easily with your solution.

So we elect the ruling elite to tell us that if you’re rich, most of your money belongs to the government. On the other hand, one party of the ruling elite relies on people remaining poor in order to stay in power.

And the President has “meep-meeped” Romney once again by forcing him and the Republicans to defend continued tax breaks for the top 2%.

Go ahead. Make his day.

chumpThreads on July 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

As Obama gives the middle class the largest tax EVER AND the worst recovery EVER. Sheesh dimwit you do realize the goal should more and higher paying jobs right? You have to rate in the top 5 dimmest posters.

I’m not saying that at all. Companies are in business to be profitable. I am not denying that.

What I am saying is why keep giving them tax breaks when they are not using the money to help the economy?

damian1967 on July 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM

It claims to be a capitalist, but its inner Marxist can’t be hid.

“Companies are in business to be profitable” <== See, I can talk like a capitalist

“Why keep giving them tax breaks when they are not using the money to help the economy?” <== Oops, the mask slips

– We’re not giving them tax breaks, we’re trying to avoid raising taxes in a recession. That is, it’s not the government giving these people money, it’s the argument that the government tax rate should not be raised.
– They’re not obligated to use the money a certain way, because — here we go again — the money doesn’t belong to the government. If these people actually own the money, then they can spend it how they like. But here the concern troll is, pretending to be a capitalist while lecturing others on their supposed obligation to “help the economy.”

Finally, there’s a simple reason why businesses are sitting on cash rather than investing it, and it just happens to be right on this topic:

Here it is in July, and businesses still don’t know what the tax rate will be in less than six months. That doesn’t prove some definition of “trickle-down economics” doesn’t work. It proves that businesses won’t spend the money until the reward is greater than the risk. And right now, the uncertainty of what the government will do next is a big part of the risk.

I must be dumb. For more than ten years I have been listening to liberals tell me the the BUSH tax cuts only benefited the rich. Lower and middle income earners got screwed. If what these lib retards have been saying for so long is true then we surely must let all the BUSH tax cuts expire.

Middle class entepreneurs? What a f@cking a$$hole !!! Only a F@cktarded liberal pantywaist come up with a term so woefully misguided.

Go ahead and tear down those links, point by point. I don’t want to get in your way.

bayam on July 9, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Do you really want me to? Do you want me to first give you a chance to point out the flaws of their arguments, or are you comfortable tying your credibility to the arguments being made in those articles?

blink on July 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Bayam, go finger your a$$ again and smell the result. It’s what your argument is worth. You are ridiculous, ill-educated slime who’s pointed head has been filled with $h!t !!!!

Watch out for the sweet smelling bait – really need to improve the middle class. Slowing down the taxation on the middle class and increasing taxes on the rich sounds great and he has been speaking of the middle class as if it is the Middle against the Top.

Remember when he is talking of different classes, he is doing his best to make a ruling class having complete control over the rest of U.S. on purpose too.

When one goes to the voting booth, remember we are in control. So when you are in the voting booth this year think If President Obama is reelected you are voting for the last time.

No, Mr. President, raising anyone’s taxes in this down economy is not the right prescription, and you know it. New leadership coming soon to save our country. One term.

Amazingoly on July 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I can agree that we should not raise taxes at this time. But here is what I miss. If we can not raise taxes in bad times does that mean we should raise taxes in good times? Give me a damn break. When should WE raise the tax rates? In a growing economy? If the GDP is growing tax takers are getting rich.

President Obama gave yet another much-recycled speech on Monday afternoon, in which he announced his latest drive to extend the Bush-era tax cuts — but only for Americans making less than $250,000 a year

In reality, Obama promised to return everybody to the tax rates under Clinton, in effect before the 2 tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The Bush tax cuts created a new bracket ($6,000 for singles, $12,000 for married couples) taxed at only 10% instead of 15%, made the 15% bracket a lot wider, and created a tax CREDIT of $1000 for families with children under 17.

A middle-class family of four would end up paying at least $2,600 MORE in taxes under the Clinton tax laws than under the current tax law.

Come on, Barry, tell us the truth–that millions of middle-class families will have to do without the thingamajig on their furnace to pay for YOUR tax hike!!!

I’d be satisfied with making sure no public official or servant makes it into the “I’m rich like you” tax bracket on the public’s dime.

But since that won’t happen, how about taxing wages and benefits for public servants at confiscatory rates when they go higher than 10% above median income of the area they serve?

Let’s say a director of schools makes $300,000 a year in a district with a median income of $40,000. Tax all his income between $44,000 to $100,000 at 25%, tax all income between $100,000 and $250,000 at 50%. Everything above $250,000 would be taxed at the much-beloved 90% rate of yore. This one public official would be responsible for returning $144,000 in tax money!

I know it’s only one small step, but if we can get all public servants to pay their fare share, which defined would be a considerable portion of their income and benifits in excess of what their neighbors earn whom they serve, we might shave hundreds of billions off the annual deficit.